51 Amendments of Kira Marie PETER-HANSEN related to 2020/2122(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the ECON Chair's letter to the President of the Eurogroup of 22 July 2020,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
— having regard to the statement agreed by the Eurogroup at its meetings of 30 November,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39 a (new)
Citation 39 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission’s action plan “for a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorism financing” published on 7 May 2020,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the need remains to limit the damage due to failures within the current structure of the banking system, structural reforms aimed at reducing a priori the systemic risks due to interconnections and complexity, underpinning the “too big to fail problem”, would be much more effective;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the completion of the Banking Union beyond its two pillars, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), is pendingBanking Union remains incomplete as long as it lacks a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS);
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the lack of a solution to the treatment of sovereign debt exposures and national options and discretions persists, undermining the European dimension of the Banking Union;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the sovereign-bank doom loop has not been properly addressed yet;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas prudential and anti-money laundering supervision is necessary and should be further strengthened;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the entry of Bulgaria and Croatia into the Banking Union; stresses that before Bulgaria and Croatia enter the euro, they should not only meet the formal entry criteria for debt levels and price stability, but also make significant progress in fighting money laundering and financial crime; emphasizes that a comprehensive assessment of the banking sector should be conduct prior to the accession to the common currency, including on less significant institutions;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the discussions in Denmark and Sweden on the possibility to enter the Banking Union and stresses that cooperation amongst national supervisors is of utmost importance, in particular as regard to cross-border activities; underlines that participation must preserve already existing and well- functioning business models with respect to financial stability;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Takes note of the Euro Summit statement of 11 December 2020 which invites the Eurogroup to “prepare, on a consensual basis, a stepwise and time- bound work plan on all outstanding elements needed to complete the Banking Union”; regrets that Member States continue to act outside the Community framework, undermining the Parliament role as co-legislator; asks to be kept informed of the on-going discussions at the level of the Eurogroup and of the High-level Working Group on EDIS;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reiterates its request for enhanced cooperation with the Eurogroup President, notably by expanding the frequency of the Economic Dialogues with the Eurogroup President to mirror the model and regularity of the Monetary Dialogues;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the vital contribution to addressing the crisis of public guarantee schemes, moratoria on loan repayments for borrowers in financial difficulty, the central banks’ liquidity programmes and the ECB’s targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO), asset purchase programme (APP) and pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP);
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Points out that the TLTRO III programme with funding rates below the deposit facility rate entails a direct subsidization of euro area institutions by the ECB; notes that these subsidies have materialised in the form of increased net interest income in the annual reports for 2020 of many euro area banks; deplores the fact that the size of these subsidies is not monitored and published by the ECB; insists that any extraordinary measures of this kind should be accompanied by measures to mitigate distortions to markets and the economy;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NotesRegrets that the ‘quick fix’ to the Capital Requirements Regulation31 extending transitional arrangements in order to support banks’ lending capacity32 ; _________________ 31Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 , postponing the application of the leverage ratio buffer, introducing more favourable treatment onf prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1). 32Regulation (EU) 2020/873 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 575/2013 and (EU) 2019/876 as regards certain adjustments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ L 204, 26.6.2020, p. 4).ublicly guaranteed loans and frontloading the SME and infrastructure factors, has been set without any corresponding obligations; calls on the Commission to assess the time horizon of such temporary measures as well as the introduction of a legally binding dividend and buy-back ban as a supervisory tool during times of crisis;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Notes that in December 2020 the SSM issued a statement changing its previous recommendation by lifting the outright ban on dividends payments and share buy backs and allowing distributions for banks with robust capital trajectories; underlines the danger that an application of distribution restrictions only to banks with weak capital positions can signal these weaknesses to the market, thus leading to further drops in the banks' share valuations;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Stresses the “unchartered waters” when it comes to credit risk exposure, as the repeatedly extended payment moratoria conceal the full extent of non- performing loans, a situation, recently described by the SSM chair as “flying blind"; considers, therefore, the lift of the dividends distributions ban as an inappropriate response to the increasing uncertainty about the health of the European banking sector; supports that the SSM should extend the currently applicable restrictions on distributions beyond September 2021 as long as fundamental uncertainties about the economic recovery and the quality of bank assets persist;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Notes with concern the heterogenous application of IFRS 9 with regard to loss provisioning by institutions revealed during the Covid-19 pandemic; calls on the SSM to take measures to ensure the consistent application of reporting standards across institutions in the Union;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Calls on the SSM to provide an estimate of the level of distributions (dividends and share buy backs) as well as variable remuneration undertaken in the first and second trimester of 2021 by banking institutions within its remit and assess their impact on banks’ capital position;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Is concerned that the European Banking Authority has not delivered its proposals for reducing the administrative burden for small institutions within the deadline set by co-legislators in the banking package; asks for more proportionality in banking regulation;
Amendment 151 #
8 a. Stresses the crucial role of the banking sector in channelling funding into sustainable investments and enabling the transition to a climate-neutral economy; underlines the importance of the Taxonomy regulation for such an endeavour; stresses the need to expand the current scope of the Taxonomy regulation by notably including a classification system for unsustainable activities (‘brown taxonomy’);
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Calls on the Commission to pursue its efforts in the field of sustainable finance by adopting the remaining delegated acts of the EU Taxonomy and Disclosure Regulation and applying, inter alia, a robust “do not significantly harm” methodology; is concerned that the ESAs deviated from Level 1 text, when developing regulatory technical standards on the Disclosure Regulation in particular as regards forward looking metrics for climate emissions, the DNSH principle and key performance indicators regarding the extent to which investments are aligned with the Taxonomy regulation; urges the Commission to adopt Delegated acts in line with the Level 1 mandate;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Calls for the establishment of a binding and credible EU-wide green bond standard, based on a strong link with the EU taxonomy and the definition of a framework favourable to the development of these bonds in order to enhance the transparency, effectiveness and credibility of sustainable investments;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8 d. Welcomes the revision of the NFRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting) and the forthcoming Sustainable Corporate Governance Initiative as way to ensure consistency, comparability and reliability of sustainability information across the financial and non-financial sector;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8 e. Regrets that credit rating agencies do not properly and systematically include ESG risks in their rating methodologies; considers the lack of adequate integration of environmental and transition risks in credit rating models a significant methodological flaw; calls on the ESMA to make full use of its supervisory powers to ensure credit rating agencies’ models properly account for all ESG risks;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the postponement ofat the implementation of the Basel III reforms and awaits the Commission’s upcoming proposal on the implementation of the finalised standards, taking into account the specificities of the EU banking sectorhas been postponed and underlines the need to implement them without unnecessary delay; stresses that international developments should be reflected, in particular as regards to the output floor; urges the Commission to refrain from integrating European specificities in a way that goes counter the very objective of Basel III, namely to make the riskiest institutions more viable; calls on the Commission to pay close attention to proportionality, maintaining a level playing field and fair competition when transposing international standards, notably for less-riskier business models, such as covered bond issuers, for which targeted deviations duly justified and documented could be envisaged;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes the interdependencies between banks and central counterparties (CCPs); highlights that there is considerable interconnectedness between the non-bank financial intermediation sector and the ‘traditional’ banking sector, which raises concerns of systemic risk given the lack of appropriate regulation and supervision of the former;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the failure to ensure full gender balance in EU financial institutions and bodies; stresses that the Eurogroup missed the opportunity to secure gender balance in the ECB Governing Council, as it did not consider any female candidates in the selection procedure and refused to present a gender-balanced shortlist of candidates; reiterates the Parliament’s commitment not to take into account lists of candidates where the gender balance principle has not been respected;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Notes with concern that the Bulgarian member of the SSM’s Supervisory Board has in the past served as CFO of First Investment Bank, which suffers from serious governance problems;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that ensuring proper and timely management of deteriorated exposures will be key to preventing a build-up of non-performing loans (NPLs) in the short term; notes in this regard the Commission communication on “Tackling non-performing loans to enable banks to support EU households and businesses”; regrets that such communication lacks any concrete proposals on ensuring borrowers’ protection; calls on the Commission to ensure a high level of consumer protection in the upcoming revision of the Consumer Credit Directive, including standards of debt collection and forbearance measures;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Is alarmed that recent banking crises have revealed that credit institutions have routinely miss-sold bonds and other financial products to retail customers; regrets that the enforcement of the BRRD provisions on consumer protection with respect to MREL eligible liabilities has been piecemeal; urges the Commission to assess the misselling of financial products by banking institutions and based on the findings to come up with appropriate proposals, including in the upcoming BRRD revision;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19 b. Stresses that an effective system of European financial supervision necessitates far-reaching product intervention powers by the European Supervisory Authorities to take action where financial and credit products have resulted in or are likely to result in, consumer detriment; regrets that these powers remain currently temporary and exceptional; calls on the co-legislators to enhance the ESAs powers in the upcoming MIFIR/MIFID revision;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Regrets that the home host issue remains a challenge; is concerned tharecognises that addressing home/host supervisory concerns remains part iof the level of NPLs rises as public support measuradditional steps needed to complete the Banking Union; stresses that such concerns stem from host authorities begin to recede, home and host countries may put in place measures to protect assets and proceed with renewed ring-fencing; stresses that banks ng responsible for paying out depositors should a subsidiary be liquidated; considers therefore that the home/host tension will not be allayed until the European risk sharing architecture has been completed and seeds to be able to operate across borders while managing he establishment of a fully-fledged EDIS as an integral part of the solution; furtheir capital and liquidity at a consolidated level, in order to diversify their risks and address any lack of profitability; considers that gradual harmonisation is required in areas where national options and discretions apply, including in the area of insolvency lawlls for a better inclusion of “local risk” into the group’s requirements that would reduce the need to “ring-fence”, a review of the SRM governance to accommodate voting modalities with a more direct involvement of both host and home authorities and harmonisation of insolvency law to facilitate resolution- planning for cross-border banking groups within the Banking Union;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. NotWelcomes the efforts of the SSM to provide guidance and clarity to banks for self-assessing and appropriately reporting environmental and climate change-related risks; considers the SSM climate risk stress test an important step in evaluating banks’ practices and identifying concrete areas of improvement; regrets that the EBA did not consider climate risk in its stress test scenarios;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Deplores the fact that the requirements for the fit and proper assessments of members of the management body of credits institutions are implemented non-uniformly across Member States; therefore calls for further harmonisation in this area; insists that fit and proper assessments by the competent authorities must always be conducted ex- ante and not ex-post;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25 b. Regrets that several Member States have not fully transposed the Anti- Money Laundering Directive IV and V yet and even more Member States have serious shortcomings in their effective implementation; welcomes that the Commission has started to launch infringement procedures and recalls its serious concern about regulatory and supervisory fragmentation in the AML/CFT area, which is ill-suited to supervise the increasing cross-border activity in the EU; calls the Commission to launch infringement proceedings for any remaining lack of effective transposition and implementation of Anti- Money Laundering Directives.
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25 c. Welcomes the Commission’s action plan “for a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorism financing” published on 7 May 2020;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 d (new)
Paragraph 25 d (new)
25 d. Calls the Commission to swiftly adopt its Anti-Money Laundering legislative package, urges the Commission to present a proposal to set-up an European Anti-Money Laundering supervisor and transfer large elements of the existing AML Directives into a regulation; stresses that the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering framework should cover crypto-assets issuers and providers; invites the Commission to consider the creation of an European Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU);
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 e (new)
Paragraph 25 e (new)
25 e. Welcomes the Commission’s Digital Finance Package; considers that the Commission’s proposals on Markets in crypto-assets and Digital Operational Resilience are timely, useful and necessary; emphasises that while digital finance increases the financing options for consumers and businesses, the consumer protection and financial stability should be preserved;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Takes notes of the SRB Covid19 measures that include a “forward looking approach” to 2019 MREL targets as well as further relief to banks in the form of changes to the intermediate MREL targets under the BRRD II; underlines that the legal basis of such regulatory action appears questionable, as it has been taken in the absence of a BRRD legislative change in light of the Covid crisis similar to the “CRR quick fix”; stresses that information on such measures remains extremely limited on the SRB website; urges the SRB to make public the guidance followed by internal resolution teams (IRTs) in applying Covid19 related relief;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Notes that the current diversity of insolvency regimes is a source of uncertainty about the outcome of liquidation procedures; is of the opinion that in order for the Banking Union to function effectively, bank insolvency laws need to be further harmonised towards an EU-wide regime, that would provide the same level of certainty in liquidation as is expected in resolution; Invites the Commission to reflect on the potential for further harmonisation of specific aspects of existing national insolvency laws in order to ensure a consistent and effective application of the crisis management framework;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Finds merit, in particular, in adopting a targeted approach to the harmonisation of the creditor hierarchy in bank insolvency proceedings; underlines, in addition, the need for harmonization of triggers for insolvency proceedings in Member States and their alignment with the withdrawal of a bank’s licence in order to prevent “limbo” situations, where a bank is declared as “failing or likely to fail” but there is neither public interest to start a resolution action nor do national laws allow the initiation of liquidation proceedings;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers itUnderlines that the 2021 ECA report on "Resolution planning in the SRM" concluded that there are inconsistencies between the internal resolution teams' assessments of critical functions leading to the risk that the SRB may not flag a function as critical although the real economy would be negatively impacted in the event of the bank’s failure; is alarmed that such an approach results in the SRB deciding against placing the bank under resolution and setting MREL requirements; considers it, therefore, necessary to review the public interest assessment in order to allow resolution tools to be applied to a broader group of banks;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Points out that for resolution plans to be fully compliant with the legal requirements, the SRB needs to provide a comprehensive assessment on each bank’s resolvability, including as to whether substantive impediments to resolvability exist and how those impediments can be removed; takes note in this respect of the SRB’s “Expectations for Banks” as well as the resolvability heatmap; stresses however, the 2021 ECA report finding that “the SRB has not yet determined substantive impediments nor initiated an administrative procedure for ensuring the removal of substantive impediments that is provided for in the legal framework; as long as there is no conclusion as to the nature of impediments, there will be no conclusion as to a bank’s resolvability”; underlines that gradual phase in of resolution planning and assessment is not foreseen in the current legal framework; is, therefore, deeply concerned by the fact that 6 years after the establishment of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), institutions in the Banking Union lack fully compliant resolution plans; urges the SRB to prepare fully- fledged plans for all the groups under its direct remit including identification and removal of any significant impediments in the 2021 cycle;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. Is deeply concerned that the Banking Union still lacks its third pillar, namely a robust European deposit insurance scheme that would ensure the protection of depositors across the entire Banking Union and significantly reduce the negative link between banks and their home sovereign;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. NotStresses the importance of depositors across the Banking Union enjoying the same level of protection of their savings; takes note of the Commission proposal to further strengthen citizens’ confidence in the protection of deposits by introducing an EDISwherever their bank is located in the EU; calls on the Commission to submit a revised legislative proposal in order to relaunch the negotiations;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Stresses the importance of risk proportionality of contributions to DGS; notes that such risk proportionality is not sufficiently implemented in most existing DGS in the Union; warns that this creates risks of moral hazard and free-riding, leading to a subsidization of speculative business models by conservative ones; notes with concern that these risks are vastly exacerbated by the emergence of online deposit brokerage platforms that use DGS coverage as a central marketing argument; recalls the recent case of Greensill Bank which attracted large amounts of deposits in a short time through such platforms; calls for a strengthening of level 2 legislation on the DGSD to ensure strict risk proportionality of contributions to DGS; emphasizes that contributions to a future EDIS must also be strictly proportional to risk;
Amendment 359 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35 b. Is of the opinion that while EDIS must provide full liquidity and loss coverage, it must preserve Institutional Protection Schemes (IPSs), which must be treated as a single entity for EDIS purposes;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Notes the Commission’s launch of the review of the CMDI framework, including the option of a hybrid EDIS;